RACHE.. sounds like ur talking about Saddam Hussein..

oh wait.. he didn't use a Nuke..

but I see some huge indicators of you needing some serious guidance..
I'm not joking.

How in this wide world.. do you connect "a religious faith" with 'Nuclear attacks'? Why..sure.. you can connect them to the Iraqi Mullah who openly declared they MUST use that method and biological and chemical weapons against the USA...

But it sounds like you are confusing 'Christian religion' with Hiroshima etc ?

aah.. that's where you are quite wrong....on 2 counts.

1/ Foundation documents DO matter..

2/ History includes (but is not limited to) an indication of 'how said documents have been correctly or incorrectly interpreted and used.

Yuyutsu...thanx for that proverb :) its a good one.

SPIKEY.. I'm not worried for my personal safety re the Kirpans, I'm concerned about ethnic/religious groups seeking to change the law just for their group on issues where our law has good reasons for not allowing some things.

-Polygamy/Bigamy
-Carrying offensive weapons.
-Wearing ballistic grage body armour. (personally I think this one is silly)
-Abuse of children by allowing homosexual couples to adopt.
-Female genital Mutilation.
-Wearing safety helmets when driving a motorcycle.. or pushbike..etc

If we allow this or that new, non traditional religion to dictate how we approach these various issues.. then we will have social chaos.
Not exactly as you put it but serious problem for sure.

"the end is nigh" :) check this out.. it's really one of those 'moments' that must haunt politicians forever:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw&feature=email

but.. a bit more context here :)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30&feature=related

"Structure" of a story.. where you cut and edit.. splice.. what ideas you associate with people... religious groups.. (The Discrimination thread).. it all determines perception.

How very odd, Boaz.

>>"Structure" of a story.. where you cut and edit.. splice.. what ideas you associate with people... religious groups.. (The Discrimination thread).. it all determines perception.<<

How very odd that you are able to write this (presumably) with a totally straight face, but refuse, time after time, to draw the same conclusion from your frequent use of selective excerpts from various religious texts.

"where you cut and edit" both the Qur'an and the Bible is designed for one purpose only. To help "determine perception" in the eyes of your readers.

It is pure propaganda, Boaz.

One-eyed, biased, one-sided, jaundiced, partisan, prejudiced, tendentious propaganda.

>>Foundation documents DO matter... History includes (but is not limited to) an indication of 'how said documents have been correctly or incorrectly interpreted and used<<

Only if you believe in them, Boaz. Which is where you go wrong, every time.

You believe in the power of your own "foundation document"

Or, to be more accurate, selected parts of it.

You reject the Old Testament when it suits you, and parts of the New when it gets a little close to the bone. But it is an article of your faith that you accept the rest.

You do not, presumably, hold the Qur'an in the same reverence.

Yet somehow you have convinced yourself - and try every day of your life to convince other people - to swallow the whole thing, lock stock and barrel as being a dangerous document, driving a dangerous religion.

If only... if only, one quiet moment, you were to take yourself to one side and ask "am I being fair? Am I holding myself to the same standards that I expect of others? Am I assessing the world around me on its merits, or as I wish it to be measured?

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion"* Robert Burns.

I don't envy you that journey, Boaz.

*Translation available if required.

Polycarp,
The point I was trying to make is that one single religion does not have a monopoly on the slaughter of innocents (innocence?).

While it's obviously true that Hiroshima itself wasn't caused by Christianity, is shows that religion cannot (or will not) stop atrocities from occurring.

I can name several wars started by religion but not a single one that was stopped because of it.

If that's the case, what good is it?

More recently, Priests and Nuns in Rwanda not only condoned the slaughter, some have been convicted in physically taking part in it, and just who sold Saddamm those nasty chemicals?

As you continue to hurl stones at the "opposition", careful of the glass walls that surround you.

By all means, keep tossing selective quotes around but remember that actions tend to speak louder than words.

Pericles,

A quick question - did you end up meeting Polly and Col for coffee?

To "see thyselves as ye wolde"

Please forgive mangling of Robert Burns.

Pollywaffle,

<<I'm not worried for my personal safety re the Kirpans, I'm concerned about ethnic/religious groups seeking to change the law just for their group on issues where our law has good reasons for not allowing some things.>>

So you feel safe. So what's the concern?

"ethnic/religious groups seeking to change the law" What, like Catholics and Anglicans do?

"just for their group" Like Baptists and the Brethren?

Oh, no. I should have read on. You've answered my question.

<<If we allow this or that new, non traditional religion to dictate how we approach these various issues.. then we will have social chaos.>>

So it's only the non-traditional religions that you're worried about? The traditional ones have the right to seek to change our laws, it seems. They don't cause "chaos"?

Could you please supply a list of said "non-traditional" religions? And how does a non-traditional religion work towards the exalted status of a "traditional" religion?

SPIKEY... the concern about the Kirpan is "this"

1/ I've interviewed some Sikh's ad hoc and found 2 of 3 said they would use their kirpan offensively to defend themselves and others. (which is the actual purpose of the weapon in their religion)

2/ The mere presense of a deadly weapon on the person of a school child means that OTHER children/ youths can access it.. The religious symbolism says in a loud voice "I might be carrying a weapon"
So..in teenage schoolyard altercations..anything could happen.

3/ It is against Australian law.. that should be the end of it.
It should be mandatory for Immigration officials to INDICATE clearly and unmistakably to would be immigrants that THIS is our 'law' and you will not be able to practice aspects a) d) and f) of your religion in Australia. Just like Muslims cannot practice polygamy or female genital mutilation.

On the issue of Baptists and Anglicans.. there is no 'need' to change the law specially for them.. it already exists in a form shaped by our rather more spiritually committed history rather than our current paganism.

FRACTELLE...no Pericles was too scared :) no.. nothing like that.. I didn't hear from him and history passed him by. Col and I got along great. The way some of you go on.. ya'da thunk I'd whacked him repeatedly and mercillessly with the biggest King James I could find, while dragging him kicking and screaming down to St Pauls and yelling GET IN THERE!... :)

RACHE.. you are viewing Christianity through secular glasses. I have a recommendation for you.. actually READDDDD the bible :) try John's Gospel.. look.. see what you find for goodness sake.. "As the Father sent me.. so I send you" "I am the Good Shepherd.. who lays down his life for the sheep".. errr can you see nuclear conflagrations in that?